RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: KWH on February 02, 2022, 01:15:04 PM
-
...will be issued on or about February 16th.
Sorry guys, I just got this e-mail so I am passing it on.
Until the Press Release, MUMM is the word!!!
-
...will be issued on or about February 16th.
Sorry guys, I just got this e-mail so I am passing it on.
Until the Press Release, MUMM is the word!!!
It is a tradition in some households to open but ONE present on Christmas Eve....that being said....
[/A TOUCHDOWN IS STILL WORTH SIX POINTS b]
-
It is a tradition in some households to open but ONE present on Christmas Eve....that being said....
[/A TOUCHDOWN IS STILL WORTH SIX POINTS b]
Are you suggesting that a touchdown on a try will now now be worth 6 points? :sTiR:
-
Don't ;D , over the years I've seen two proposals that would change the points for a touchdown ^good.
LOL TD from beyond B's 20 = 8 points, add a point for each 10 yards further out, max. 12 points. TD on COP = 10.
FG = 4 beyond B's 30, 5 beyond 40, 6 beyond 50.
PAT & safety remain the same
;D TD worth 7, no PAT; or take 6 and go for 2 :!#.
Neither of these were felt to be good ideas. What was felt to be a good idea was to limit proposals to only those with state association approval or from rules committee members yEs: . Grandma used to be able to submit a proposal if she wished.
[/AS PAUL HARVEY USED TO SAY,"NOW YOU KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY "... tiphat:b]
-
Back in the 90's MTV had a charity basketball event that had a bunch of gimmicky rules -- one of which was a "10 point shot" if you made a basket from a specific spot on the court.
I think we should do that for football too. Throw a TD when the QB is in the spot? 10 points. Field goal from the spot? 6 points. Make the spot outside the numbers on the 43s or some such.
Or we could make it more academic and add two points if the scoring play starts on a prime yard line. TD from the 15? 6 points. TD from the 17? 8 points. From the 18? back to 6 points.
-
Back in the 90's MTV had a charity basketball event that had a bunch of gimmicky rules -- one of which was a "10 point shot" if you made a basket from a specific spot on the court.
I think we should do that for football too. Throw a TD when the QB is in the spot? 10 points. Field goal from the spot? 6 points. Make the spot outside the numbers on the 43s or some such.
Or we could make it more academic and add two points if the scoring play starts on a prime yard line. TD from the 15? 6 points. TD from the 17? 8 points. From the 18? back to 6 points.
That would certainly open up officiating recruiting to math teachers, surveyors and the like :). they should always carry a compass should the field lines should become faint. The ref should be also a CPA to track scoring.
-
That would certainly open up officiating recruiting to math teachers, surveyors and the like :). they should always carry a compass should the field lines should become faint. The ref should be also a CPA to track scoring.
And it would decimate the number of coaches capable of working under those rules. Hmmm. ;)
-
Back in the 90's MTV had a charity basketball event that had a bunch of gimmicky rules -- one of which was a "10 point shot" if you made a basket from a specific spot on the court.
I think we should do that for football too. Throw a TD when the QB is in the spot? 10 points. Field goal from the spot? 6 points. Make the spot outside the numbers on the 43s or some such.
Or we could make it more academic and add two points if the scoring play starts on a prime yard line. TD from the 15? 6 points. TD from the 17? 8 points. From the 18? back to 6 points.
I never liked getting more points for being further out in any sport. Sure it's harder skill-wise, but it kind of goes against the essence of the game.
Team sports are very loosely based on war. The more you advance into your enemy's territory, the more points you get. Getting more points for being further away is just counter-intuitive to me. You're intentionally not advancing.
-
In basketball, a shot from further away is worth 3 points because making a longer shot is more difficult than making a closer shot. Maybe the experimenters are trying to copy basketball logic, but still that is silly.
-
Back in the 90's MTV had a charity basketball event that had a bunch of gimmicky rules -- one of which was a "10 point shot" if you made a basket from a specific spot on the court.
I think we should do that for football too. Throw a TD when the QB is in the spot? 10 points. Field goal from the spot? 6 points. Make the spot outside the numbers on the 43s or some such.
Or we could make it more academic and add two points if the scoring play starts on a prime yard line. TD from the 15? 6 points. TD from the 17? 8 points. From the 18? back to 6 points.
Recent medical studies have shown, those who watched MTV in the 90's (or since) have since suffered serious cognitive problems.
-
I never liked getting more points for being further out in any sport. Sure it's harder skill-wise, but it kind of goes against the essence of the game.
Team sports are very loosely based on war. The more you advance into your enemy's territory, the more points you get. Getting more points for being further away is just counter-intuitive to me. You're intentionally not advancing.
So....How does your theory work with a Drop Kick Bossman?
Should a successful drop kick be worth more than a successful kick from placement? ^talk
-
So....How does your theory work with a Drop Kick Bossman?
Should a successful drop kick be worth more than a successful kick from placement? ^talk
If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it.
-
ALF -
It takes way more talent to successfully complete a drop kick than it does to successfully complete a kick from placement! (One takes three players and the other takes just one player)
It is for this reason, in 6-Player Football, a successful Field Goal is worth 4 points. (Rule 8a)
They do attempt drop kicks in 6-player but they do not typically attempt kicks from placement as they would be relatively easy to block.
Based on the above, arguably, a drop kick in 8, 9, and 11 player could be worth 4. This could resurrect the drop kick?
As my good friend Ralph from Maine would say, uh ya, s'pect so!
But alas, while its a great conversation over beers, I dont think either of us would ever support it
-
ALF -
It takes way more talent to successfully complete a drop kick than it does to successfully complete a kick from placement! (One takes three players and the other takes just one player)
It is for this reason, in 6-Player Football, a successful Field Goal is worth 4 points. (Rule 8a)
They do attempt drop kicks in 6-player but they do not typically attempt kicks from placement as they would be relatively easy to block.
Based on the above, arguably, a drop kick in 8, 9, and 11 player could be worth 4. This could resurrect the drop kick?
As my good friend Ralph from Maine would say, uh ya, s'pect so!
But alas, while its a great conversation over beers, I dont think either of us would ever support it
I believe ,in Arena Football, a drop kick was/is
worth four...if there is still Arena Football tR:oLl
1947 : (9-4-a) Team which makes a return kick may score if a drop kick is used.
1965 : (2-14-2,6-3,9-4-3) The return kick has been eliminated. Kicking the ball after change of possession is a foul. Reference to return-kick is deleted in various portions of the rules.
…….JUST WHEN WE WERE HAVING FUN :'(
-
1965 : (2-14-2,6-3,9-4-3) The return kick has been eliminated. Kicking the ball after change of possession is a foul. Reference to return-kick is deleted in various portions of the rules.
but this is what makes Canadian football fun to watch
-
1965 : (2-14-2,6-3,9-4-3) The return kick has been eliminated. Kicking the ball after change of possession is a foul. Reference to return-kick is deleted in various portions of the rules.
but this is what makes Canadian football fun to watch
I believe the return kick is used sometimes to prevent a rouge. A punt into R's end zone (20 yards deep) is worth a point for K if R doesn't bring it out. A grassroots movement could be formed with the slogan : "RETURN THE RETURN KICK"....I wouldn't care to be part of....
-
1965 : (2-14-2,6-3,9-4-3) The return kick has been eliminated. Kicking the ball after change of possession is a foul. Reference to return-kick is deleted in various portions of the rules.
but this is what makes Canadian football fun to watch
If the thought is to return kick a free kick I feel that section 8.3.9 would be a better tactic to employ...."After a try, the opponent of the scoring team shall designate which team will kick off"....
If the objective is to try and pin your opponent deep in his own territory it would be better to simply to kick off to them again after just having been scored on rather than receiving the ball from a free kick and immediately punt the ball back (like in rugby).
-
I would love to see the drop kick reinstated with more points awarded due to the degree of difficulty. I think it would allow for more participation by promoting specialization and introduce more strategy, which in turn would make the games even more exciting and at least for awhile the drop kick play would be a very interesting novelty.
p.s. modifying to add that I understand we are now in the dog days of the football officials message boards as we stretch for something meaningful to talk about hEaDbAnG
-
1965 : (2-14-2,6-3,9-4-3) The return kick has been eliminated. Kicking the ball after change of possession is a foul. Reference to return-kick is deleted in various portions of the rules.
but this is what makes Canadian football fun to watch
....in addition. In most all cases it would be better to set up for a punt play from scrimmage. I don't watch Canadian football but do teams often return kick?
-
....in addition. In most all cases it would be better to set up for a punt play from scrimmage. I don't watch Canadian football but do teams often return kick?
Several years ago, a former CFL official moved into our area and joined our chapter. I asked him the same question and his response was : "Usually only to prevent a rouge as you're giving up the football." I played high school football from 1962-1964, when the return kick was legal. Don't remember ever heard or seen it then. Possibly the option to free kick after a fair catch was an offshoot of the return kick.
Even more years ago, when I was much younger and spryer , my nephew and I were playing pass with a football. My nephew was a high school soccer goalie. Soccer goalies often drop kick to clear. I asked him to try to drop kick a football. He tried, it didn't go well. Round balls have a true bounce, footballs don't.
-
Round balls have a true bounce, footballs don't.
Well, there's your problem. You don't wait for the bounce. You kick it AS it strikes the ground. ;)
-
check this out: https://youtu.be/d5BFaykcxGg
Canadian football at its best
-
check this out: https://youtu.be/d5BFaykcxGg
Canadian football at its best
So... What? They don't have an illegally kicking the ball rule? B13 kicked the ball while it was bounding around, loose, in the end zone. But, Team A recovers for an apparent touchdown, so who cares (I guess)?
-
IS IT SOCCER ??? ??? ,IS IT RUGBY ??? ???......NO IT'S CANADIAN FOOTBALL tiphat:
I BELIEVE I LIVE CLOSER TO THE MONTREAL ALOUETTES THAN TO THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS ….they didn't win the Gray Cup, neither :'( .
:-[ I was wrong....more useless facts..... :-[
Foxbrough , Mass....235 miles......Pittsfield, Maine......258 miles...…….Montreal, Canada
one US dollar is worth $1.27 Canadian loony tR:oLl
-
Doug Flutie drop kick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3EaLfpZjaw
-
Thanks, Toma, for the memories of that. Over the years, I've had 2 coach questions to share regarding drop kicks. They both involved free kicks.
COACH: "My kicker will drop kick the kickoff. It'll be high and his teammates will catch it in the air after it has gone 10 yards. Where the ball has touched the ground during the kick, its legal ,right ??? ??? "
ANSWER : The kick isn't a kick until it's kicked. A drop kick isn't kicked until after the ball touches the ground ^flag "
COACH : "My kicker will place the ball so that falls off the tee. He'll then yell to a teammate to hold the ball on the tee for him. As he walks back, pretending to still be the kicker, his teammate picks up the ball and drop kicks it CATCHING THE RECIEVERS OFF GUARD. 8] "
ANSWER : Play will be blown dead, new kickoff at K's 25, Coach is now halfway to detention ^flag :puke: .
PS : Although never asked, I'll answer... 6-1-2 : (...When a punt is used following a safety, the ball must be free kicked within one step behind K's free kick line. ..). The same would hold true if a drop :!# kick was chosen. The rationale of that rule is that the kicking team can enter the 10 yard neutral zone when the ball is kicked, not when the ball enters the neutral zone. This prevents the punter/drop kicker going back several yards and kicking a 'grounder' where his teammates could beat the ball downfield. ::)
-
Well, there's your problem. You don't wait for the bounce. You kick it AS it strikes the ground. ;)
if you are referring to a drop kick you are incorrect. A drop kick is kicking a ball that has hit the ground and you kick it the instant it rises.
-
Unless NFHS has a different definition than NCAA, Elvis is correct. There is nothing in the NCAA rule regarding kicking on the upbounce.
2-16-3
A drop kick is a kick by a player who drops the ball and kicks it as it touches the ground.
-
Yes, there is an additional caveat in NFHS rules:
2-24-6: A drop kick is a legal kick by a player who drops the ball and kicks it when it touches the ground or as it is rising from the ground.
In practice, this would be true in NCAA as well. If the ball strikes the ground, but the kick is a quarter second late so the ball has risen a half inch off the ground, is that going to be called a foul? Would replay want to review this? Even if the ball bounces high enough to be significantly off the ground, I don't think you're going to have an effective kick (unless you've mastered the shin kick) and it seems unlikely to be an advantage.
-
In the Flutie flick, via Toma, the ball is rising off the ground before the kick. NO FLAGS, if the ball is kicked as it touches the ground (a tie) I do not believe that should negate KCI as the kick would still be airborne. If said kick isn't considered airborne, it couldn't score a FG or PAT (8-4-1b).
-
I would tend to agree that the intent of the rule, and if you slice words carefully, the actual wording of the rule states that K can recover a free kick as long as it's touched the ground *after the physical kick*. The ball leaves the kicker's foot, airborne to some level, and subsequently touches the ground.
Otherwise, the whole drop kick argument is really moot. Why not just have somebody hold the ball on the ground without a tee? No need to split hairs about when the ball bounces then.
-
AN UNWRITTEN RULE OF FOOTBALL...….
DON'T LOOK FOR FLY POOP IN THE PEPPER SHAKER ;D
-
if you are referring to a drop kick you are incorrect. A drop kick is kicking a ball that has hit the ground and you kick it the instant it rises.
Actually Derek, I disagree based on the wording of the Rules Book.
2-24-6...A drop kick is a legal kick by a player who drops the ball and kicks it when it touches the ground
OR as it is rising from the ground.
Based on the wording of the Rules Book definition, the ball could be kicked when it is 10 inches off the ground just as long as it is still rising from the ground when it is kicked.
-
IMHO, a drop-kicker would have until the gravitational pull of earth caused the ball's decent. A word of caution to potential drop-kickers : Round balls have true bounces. Footballs aren't round.
Our new rules should be unwrapped any day now. Hint: None impact drop-kicks.
-
IMHO, a drop-kicker would have until the gravitational pull of earth caused the ball's decent. A word of caution to potential drop-kickers : Round balls have true bounces. Footballs aren't round.
Our new rules should be unwrapped any day now. Hint: None impact drop-kicks.
Good point Ralph!
I shall factor that in when discussing the no change to the drop kick rule!
-
IMHO, a drop-kicker would have until the gravitational pull of earth caused the ball's decent. A word of caution to potential drop-kickers : Round balls have true bounces. Footballs aren't round.
Our new rules should be unwrapped any day now. Hint: None impact drop-kicks.
I don't give two cents about what new rules the NFHS is coming out with as I don't follow those rules. But dang, the curiosity has gotten to me. I can't wait to see them. Hurry up already. ^good
-
I don't give two cents about what new rules the NFHS is coming out with as I don't follow those rules. But dang, the curiosity has gotten to me. I can't wait to see them. Hurry up already. ^good
You will need to hold tight to your TASO until Friday mornin'!
-
(https://c.tenor.com/fyylSNGrZ80AAAAd/well-waiting.gif)
-
Its out on the NFHS page but their link is bad. I found it here- https://www.highschoolot.com/revised-intentional-grounding-chop-block-rules-headline-2022-high-school-football-rules-changes/20145139/?fbclid=IwAR3g81X97Tz40NzTLoNPTZWwBQOXeleQJSAamoD8VQkIhg346JfearJH3t0
-
So still no auto first for DPI?
Amazing.
-
It still didn't pass. Maybe next year. At least now there is no substantive difference between the high school and college intentional grounding rules. I'll have to read the actual text to compare the details.
-
Not crazy about the new Int Grounding rule....but we'll adapt...only question I have I guess is with the proliferation of passing now a days....who will be responsible to see if the pass gets back to the LOS? White hat is with the QB all the way....as Umpire I have 8 linemen to watch, if team sends 4-5 guys downfield that leaves 3 men in a 5 man crew to watch 4-5 guys running routes, watching for holding, PI, etc. hEaDbAnG
Ralph, was their discussion on that point, and if so, what was the overall feeling for coverage?
I bet there will be many many kids lining up to wear "0" .... :!#
-
The NFHS.org link seems to work here:
https://www.nfhs.org/articles/revised-intentional-grounding-chop-block-rules-headline-2022-high-school-football-rules-changes/
However, the link HL posted is exactly the same content.
So if I can summarize the rule changes:
1. We now have a "pocket" that the QB can be outside of.
2. Chop blocks are above/below the waist instead of the knee
3. Fouls under 2 minutes can allow for the clock to start on the snap, even if declined.
4. Play clock at 40 if *and only if* there is a defensive foul. Fouls by both means 25.
5. Any official can say, "Hey, give me a clean/dry/new ball"
The more technical changes:
1. Players can wear 0, but not 00 or 02.
2. Team boxes can be extended by state adoption.
-
A WORD (OR TWO) ABOUT WHAT'S NEW...…
First, what's not : Adding AFD to DPI didn't carry a majority (and you need a super majority -67% to pass) 23-24.
7-5-2 Exception 2 : QB can dump pass IF he is outside the sides of the FBZ (not tackle box, as 6,8,9 man don't have tackles) and pass must cross LOS. 3 states ran this as an experimental rule and claimed this was not much of a challenge. A glance from ump or wing can easily see if pass stays inbounds. If thrown to Bubba's grandma setting in the top row of bleachers, give QB benefit of doubt if unsure.
1-2-3g(3) : Team boxes can be extended if state wishes. Coaches can "help"us make goalline calls ;D.
1-3-3 : Any official can ask for a new ball. Ball boys often run new balls in and fetch long incomplete passes.
1-4-3 : "0" is now a legal receiver's number. A kid want's to be at top of program, just ask for zero ;D. ;D
2-3-8 : High/low chop block is now determined at waist,not knee. Many defenders come in low and probably many officials use waist as guideline now.
3-4-7 : Fouled team can start clock on snap in last 2 minutes of each half regardless of choice of penalty.
3-6-1a1(e)4 : Double fouls = 25 seconds on play clock.
[/HOPE YOU LIKE 'EM ,ALL
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:b]
-
Defensive Fouls only - 40 Seconds and this is in effect for the entire game.
-
A WORD (OR TWO) ABOUT WHAT'S NEW...…
1-2-3g(3) : Team boxes can be extended if state wishes. Coaches can "help"us make goalline calls ;D.
1-3-3 : Any official can ask for a new ball. Ball boys often run new balls in and fetch long incomplete passes.
1-4-3 : "0" is now a legal receiver's number. A kid want's to be at top of program, just ask for zero ;D. ;D
2-3-8 : High/low chop block is now determined at waist,not knee. Many defenders come in low and probably many officials use waist as guideline now.
3-4-7 : Fouled team can start clock on snap in last 2 minutes of each half regardless of choice of penalty.
3-6-1a1(e)4 : Double fouls = 25 seconds on play clock.
[
"Ours is not to reason Why, What will be, will be" but 1-2-3g, If extending the team box includes goal line to goal line, whose bright idea reasoned, getting Coaches assistance on calling goalline plays would be beneficial., aside from supporting carrying a second flag is a VERY prudent idea.
-
A WORD (OR TWO) ABOUT WHAT'S NEW...…
1-2-3g(3) : Team boxes can be extended if state wishes. Coaches can "help"us make goalline calls ;D .
Ralph, this one kind of surprised me- where did this idea come from, and how far do states want to extend the team box? Did any formal experimentation happen outside of the COVID-related stuff in 2020?
-
Ralph, this one kind of surprised me- where did this idea come from, and how far do states want to extend the team box? Did any formal experimentation happen outside of the COVID-related stuff in 2020?
When COVID first came to town, it was felt to allow this would allow the bench personal to social distance. In the real world, everyone seemed to bunch up to get the best view of LOS. IF a state would want to continue doing that , they could. It will be listed under 1-7, the 'state's rights' rule.
-
We had this in Texas, and at least in my experience, the opposite happened - coaches were very reticent to venture outside of the comfort zone. Some would, but even when I reminded some that they could, I was told they like what they were used to.
-
A WORD (OR TWO) ABOUT WHAT'S NEW...…
First, what's not : Adding AFD to DPI didn't carry a majority (and you need a super majority -67% to pass) 23-24.
7-5-2 Exception 2 : QB can dump pass IF he is outside the sides of the FBZ (not tackle box, as 6,8,9 man don't have tackles) and pass must cross LOS. 3 states ran this as an experimental rule and claimed this was not much of a challenge. A glance from ump or wing can easily see if pass stays inbounds. If thrown to Bubba's grandma setting in the top row of bleachers, give QB benefit of doubt if unsure.
1-2-3g(3) : Team boxes can be extended if state wishes. Coaches can "help"us make goalline calls ;D.
1-3-3 : Any official can ask for a new ball. Ball boys often run new balls in and fetch long incomplete passes.
1-4-3 : "0" is now a legal receiver's number. A kid want's to be at top of program, just ask for zero ;D. ;D
2-3-8 : High/low chop block is now determined at waist,not knee. Many defenders come in low and probably many officials use waist as guideline now.
3-4-7 : Fouled team can start clock on snap in last 2 minutes of each half regardless of choice of penalty.
3-6-1a1(e)4 : Double fouls = 25 seconds on play clock.
[/HOPE YOU LIKE 'EM ,ALL
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:b]
So if the QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball OOB beyond the LOS extended - OK
QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball beyond the LOS no receiver in the area ING
-
So if the QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball OOB beyond the LOS extended - OK
QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball beyond the LOS no receiver in the area ING - OK
Unlike other codes, pressure on the Passer is NOT part of the equation!
Additionally, if he/she utilizes the EXCEPTION, a receiver in the area is NOT part of the equation
-
So if the QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball OOB beyond the LOS extended - OK
QB being pressured outside FBZ dumps the ball beyond the LOS no receiver in the area ING - OK
Did the irony of having a POE about IG in the rulebook just last season come up when this was bandied about by the Illuminati?
-
Unlike other codes, pressure on the Passer is NOT part of the equation!
Additionally, if he/she utilizes the EXCEPTION, a receiver in the area is NOT part of the equation
Question: Can the passer legally throw the ball away to conserve TIME under this rule change? The wording in the press release states "yardage" only:
7-5-2 EXCEPTION 2. (NEW):
Added a new exception that allows the passer to legally throw the ball away to conserve yardage.
Also, how can we justify the passer's intent to conserve yardage if he or she is not being pressured?
Just questions that popped up in my mind.
-
Unlike other codes, pressure on the Passer is NOT part of the equation!
Additionally, if he/she utilizes the EXCEPTION, a receiver in the area is NOT part of the equation
I promise, I'm trying to be a nicer guy this year, so I'm not trying to stir the pot here at all, but wasn't the majority argument for the new IG rule protection of the QB? IMHO, he doesn't need protection if he's not being pressured?
-
Question: Can the passer legally throw the ball away to conserve TIME under this rule change? The wording in the press release states "yardage" only:
7-5-2 EXCEPTION 2. (NEW):
Added a new exception that allows the passer to legally throw the ball away to conserve yardage.
Also, how can we justify the passer's intent to conserve yardage if he or she is not being pressured?
Just questions that popped up in my mind.
Don't try to make it too complicated because it is not too complicated
7-5-2 EXCEPTION became 7-5-2 EXCEPTION 1 and remains unchanged. Exception 1 allows a player to conserve time.
7-5-2 EXCEPTION 2 (New) Simply allows the Passer a legal way to terminate the play if, (and only if) he/she meets both requirements of EXCEPTION 2.
If he/she fails to meet either or both requirements of EXCEPTION 2, he/she falls back to the existing ING rule.
The rule was intentionally written to leave "Under duress" out of the rule.
Restated: He/She can roll out to the left, and, determine no one is open, and throw the ball away! JUST SO LONG AS IT GOES BEYOND THE LOS (or the LOS Extended OOB)
Again, Whether or not the passer is/was under duress is NOT A FACTOR in NFHS code!
I hope that made some sense? ???
-
Yes. It seems the rule makers want to give the passer a “free dump.” No problem with that. Is it too late to remove the “to conserve yardage” language? Since that’s obviously not the intent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
So as I understand it then, a running back on an option play can throw the ball away, as long as he’s outside the FBZ and crosses LOS?
-
Yes because it's the "passer", not the "player receiving the snap".
-
For clarification, Ralph posted in the other thread on this (http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=16042.msg163228#msg163228) a comment that suggests that the exception may be limited and not just the "passer", broadly defined. Is that true, or can anybody chuck the ball away as long as the requirements are met?
NCAA rules, for example, state that the exception "applies only to the player who controls the snap or the resulting backward pass and does not relinquish possession to another player before throwing the forward pass."
I fundamentally would have an issue with QB receiving the snap, handing off to the RB who goes wide but the defense has him penned in looking at a 3 yard loss, so he just dumps the ball out of bounds (beyond the LOS). Legally speaking, the RB is allowed to throw a forward pass and become a passer, but that's not the intent of the rule.
-
Yes because it's the "passer", not the "player receiving the snap".
Forgive me, but I'm getting lost in the "Weeds". Under NFHS 2-32 A PASSER is defined, "as a PLAYER who throws a legal forward pass, while a "RUNNER" is defined as a PLAYER who is in possession of a live ball...." and a PLAYER is defined as one of the 22 members of a Team designated to start a game, or subsequently enters as a substitute.
I've always understood; a PLAYER becomes a RUNNER when he/she possesses a live ball and should that Runner subsequently throw a legal forward pass he/she then becomes a Passer. So that; "the PLAYER receiving the snap" becomes a "RUNNER" if/when he/she possesses the ball (see NFHS:2-34-1) and should he/she subsequently throw a "legal forward pass" then becomes a "PASSER".
-
Forgive me, but I'm getting lost in the "Weeds". Under NFHS 2-32 A PASSER is defined, "as a PLAYER who throws a legal forward pass, while a "RUNNER" is defined as a PLAYER who is in possession of a live ball...." and a PLAYER is defined as one of the 22 members of a Team designated to start a game, or subsequently enters as a substitute.
I've always understood; a PLAYER becomes a RUNNER when he/she possesses a live ball and should that Runner subsequently throw a legal forward pass he/she then becomes a Passer. So that; "the PLAYER receiving the snap" becomes a "RUNNER" if/when he/she possesses the ball (see NFHS:2-34-1) and should he/she subsequently throw a "legal forward pass" then becomes a "PASSER".
This is true. The difference is that not all passers were once players who received the snap. A player can also become a runner by way of a handoff, pass reception (forward or backward), or fumble recovery. This player can then become a passer by passing the ball. The NCAA doesn’t want to allow the exception for this player, and so they excluded him or her. The NFHS has not done so with this exception. Because they haven’t yet distinguished between the two types of passers, either can dump the ball without penalty, as long as the conditions are met.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
What a can of worms this becomes. QB at the 50 yard line throws the ball to a receiver at the "A" 47. Defense is closing in and he throws the ball into the stands past the LOS. NO Flag by this rule.
Another question: Nowhere does it say that the ball has to go beyond the LOS in the air. What if it hits a yard behind the LOS and bounces 5 yards past the LOS. Flag?
You know there are coaches right now planning for these uncovered details.
-
For clarification, Ralph posted in the other thread on this (http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=16042.msg163228#msg163228) a comment that suggests that the exception may be limited and not just the "passer", broadly defined. Is that true, or can anybody chuck the ball away as long as the requirements are met?
NCAA rules, for example, state that the exception "applies only to the player who controls the snap or the resulting backward pass and does not relinquish possession to another player before throwing the forward pass."
I fundamentally would have an issue with QB receiving the snap, handing off to the RB who goes wide but the defense has him penned in looking at a 3 yard loss, so he just dumps the ball out of bounds (beyond the LOS). Legally speaking, the RB is allowed to throw a forward pass and become a passer, but that's not the intent of the rule.
I don't think the "person that received the snap" clause was put into the NCAA grounding rule until like 2014-ish. The rule before that looked simple like the NFHS rule where anybody could ground it. I think there were many smart coaches before 2014 that would have figured it out and told their RB's to do that.
RB's will never do this because 1) They have the ball tucked away, 2) They're running hard trying to hit the corner and outrun people, and 3) They don't get that "oh crap" moment and realize they need to throw it away until they're already being contacted or defenders closing in.
I think it will be rare to see the RB throw it away on a play that's not a designed halfback pass or reverse pass. We really have nothing to worry about.
-
I don't think the "person that received the snap" clause was put into the NCAA grounding rule until like 2014-ish. The rule before that looked simple like the NFHS rule where anybody could ground it. I think there were many smart coaches before 2014 that would have figured it out and told their RB's to do that.
RB's will never do this because 1) They have the ball tucked away, 2) They're running hard trying to hit the corner and outrun people, and 3) They don't get that "oh crap" moment and realize they need to throw it away until they're already being contacted or defenders closing in.
I think it will be rare to see the RB throw it away on a play that's not a designed halfback pass or reverse pass. We really have nothing to worry about.
You are probably right, but at some point Murphys Law will pop up. The best course is to write the rule to state precisely who may and who may not benefit from this exception.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
What a can of worms this becomes. QB at the 50 yard line throws the ball to a receiver at the "A" 47. Defense is closing in and he throws the ball into the stands past the LOS. NO Flag by this rule.
Another question: Nowhere does it say that the ball has to go beyond the LOS in the air. What if it hits a yard behind the LOS and bounces 5 yards past the LOS. Flag?
You know there are coaches right now planning for these uncovered details.
First off, I'd like to point out we're nitpicking the rule that none of us have actually seen. These sorts of specifics of the rule aren't mentioned in the press release, nor should they. I'm sure that a few of us may have seen the rule, but aren't allowed to make comments about it until the rule books come out. Until then, this is all hypotheticals.
However, I would posit that your concern is not warranted. Assuming what we've seen so far, the pass must cross the line of scrimmage. A ball in flight ceases to be a pass (among other things) when it hits the ground (2-31-4). If the pass hits the ground short of the LOS, a) the play is now dead and anything after is irrelevant, and b) the pass status of the ball is over, so even if it did roll across the LOS it was not a pass that did so.
-
First off, I'd like to point out we're nitpicking the rule that none of us have actually seen.
:thumbup Probably a good idea to just wait on the actual rule language before we get too frazzled about how to "adjust" to this change. yEs:
-
Well, the definition of passer is pretty narrowly yet simply defined- 2-32-11- . . .A passer is a player who throws a legal forward pass. He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play.
Why make it anymore complicated? Would we remove RTP just because the passer happened to be the HB on an option pass? No.
-
I don't think the "person that received the snap" clause was put into the NCAA grounding rule until like 2014-ish. The rule before that looked simple like the NFHS rule where anybody could ground it. I think there were many smart coaches before 2014 that would have figured it out and told their RB's to do that.
RB's will never do this because 1) They have the ball tucked away, 2) They're running hard trying to hit the corner and outrun people, and 3) They don't get that "oh crap" moment and realize they need to throw it away until they're already being contacted or defenders closing in.
I think it will be rare to see the RB throw it away on a play that's not a designed halfback pass or reverse pass. We really have nothing to worry about.
Agree completely with Bossman and HLinNC
Something else to consider:
Should a halfback choose to become "THE PASSER"; wouldn't it be likely there were ineligible's downfield.
-
Possible but not guaranteed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
You are probably right, but at some point Murphys Law will pop up. The best course is to write the rule to state precisely who may and who may not benefit from this exception.
First off, I'd like to point out we're nitpicking the rule that none of us have actually seen
All very true.
However, may I present in classic "Wayne's World" fashion- "DIDDLY-DOO DIDDLY-DOO DIDDLY DOO"- the Horse-collar Tackle rule. If memory serves me correct, it took about 3 years to get that cake fully baked.
-
All very true.
However, may I present in classic "Wayne's World" fashion- "DIDDLY-DOO DIDDLY-DOO DIDDLY DOO"- the Horse-collar Tackle rule. If memory serves me correct, it took about 3 years to get that cake fully baked.
Yes that’s true. But here’s the thing, again, this is only my opinion, but IMO, when you have a rule proposition that has already been through all of the adjustments at the next level, why not just adopt that language? Problem solved or should I say, prevented. NCAA already has this rule, and administers it with no problem. I can’t understand the reluctance of the rules committee toward just adopting the college level language. No need to reinvent the wheel on this.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I can’t understand the reluctance of the rules committee toward just adopting the college level language. No need to reinvent the wheel on this.
The same group that allegedly hates exceptions then creates exceptions. <shoulder shrug thingy>
-
Possible but not guaranteed.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Particularly with RPO.
-
If memory serves me correct, it took about 3 years to get that cake fully baked.
In all three rules codes, not just NFHS.
-
Do we know yet if the rule will require an eligible receiver in the vicinity?
-
Do we know yet if the rule will require an eligible receiver in the vicinity?
If it did, how would that make it different from the current rule?
The direct answer to your question is that we don't know, but I would be very surprised if it did.
-
Do we know yet if the rule will require an eligible receiver in the vicinity?
I'm not sure what you're asking. This was the old rule where you always needed a receiver in the vicinity.
-
I'm not sure what you're asking. This was the old rule where you always needed a receiver in the vicinity.
Are you saying that, under the “old” rule, you could never call IG if there was a receiver in the area? Because I’ve seen plenty of times that it’s been called — QB throws it into the tenth row of seats, or spikes it into the ground five yards short of the receiver while being tackled, just to name a couple.
-
Are you saying that, under the “old” rule, you could never call IG if there was a receiver in the area? Because I’ve seen plenty of times that it’s been called — QB throws it into the tenth row of seats, or spikes it into the ground five yards short of the receiver while being tackled, just to name a couple.
The "Old Rule" remains in effect.
The "New rule" should be considered as quite simply the only legal method for the Passer to terminate the play.
Should the passer fail to meet both requirements of the New Rule, then the Old rule remains in effect.
Remember, if the passer has NOT met both requirements EXCEPTION 2, it remains a foul if there was no
eligible receiver in the area, or, if a receiver in the area cannot make a bona fide attempt to catch the forward
pass (e.g., the pass is intentionally thrown to the ground short of an eligible receiver, or the pass is
intentionally thrown over an eligible receiver’s head).
I hope that makes sense?
-
Are you saying that, under the “old” rule, you could never call IG if there was a receiver in the area? Because I’ve seen plenty of times that it’s been called — QB throws it into the tenth row of seats, or spikes it into the ground five yards short of the receiver while being tackled, just to name a couple.
1) QB throws into the 10th row, I highly doubt there is a receiver in the 10th row. So under the old rule, yes, this would be ING. New rule, if the QB made it outside the FBZ and got the ball past the LOS extended, there would be no foul.
2) Spikes it into the ground 5 yards short of the receiver... I'd have to see the play.
Anyway, like KWH said, your criteria for judging ING is exactly the same as last year.
On all of your ING plays last year, the only time you would not call ING is if the ball got past the LOS extended and the QB got outside the FBZ. All other criteria basically remain the same.
-
1) QB throws into the 10th row, I highly doubt there is a receiver in the 10th row. So under the old rule, yes, this would be ING. New rule, if the QB made it outside the FBZ and got the ball past the LOS extended, there would be no foul.
2) Spikes it into the ground 5 yards short of the receiver... I'd have to see the play.
Anyway, like KWH said, your criteria for judging ING is exactly the same as last year.
On all of your ING plays last year, the only time you would not call ING is if the ball got past the LOS extended and the QB got outside the FBZ. All other criteria basically remain the same.
^good aWaRd yEs:
-
Let me ask my question the way I would have yesterday if I had finished my coffee first:
Under the new rule, if the QB is outside the FBZ and the pass crosses the LOS, does there have to be a receiver in the area for the exception to apply?
-
If it did, how would that make it different from the current rule?
The direct answer to your question is that we don't know, but I would be very surprised if it did.
Just a thought, if the NFHS would simply include the actual text of new/updated/modified rules in their annual advance press releases, it would likely reduce (if not eliminate) much of the confusion/speculation these announcements often generate.
-
Let me ask my question the way I would have yesterday if I had finished my coffee first:
Under the new rule, if the QB is outside the FBZ and the pass crosses the LOS, does there have to be a receiver in the area for the exception to apply?
Short answer, no.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Just a thought, if the NFHS would simply include the actual text of new/updated/modified rules in their annual advance press releases, it would likely reduce (if not eliminate) much of the confusion/speculation these announcements often generate.
I agree.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Just a thought, if the NFHS would simply include the actual text of new/updated/modified rules in their annual advance press releases, it would likely reduce (if not eliminate) much of the confusion/speculation these announcements often generate.
I'm sure there are at least two on here that know for sure but I'm fairly certain that the actual wording of the rule isn't done yet. These press releases are basically a "heads up, here's what's coming" .
-
Let me ask my question the way I would have yesterday if I had finished my coffee first:
Under the new rule, if the QB is outside the FBZ and the pass crosses the LOS, does there have to be a receiver in the area for the exception to apply?
No, that's always been legal.
The point of the exception is to allow that when there is NO receiver in the area.
So, a flow chart. (See attached image)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
7-5-2e says;
In NFHS, it has NEVER been legal to intentionally throw a pass incomplete to save a loss of yardage.
In NFHS, there now a method for the Passer to legally terminate the play if he/she meets both the requirements of a and b.
Failure to do both, and he/she will be suspect for ING.
Some are of the opinion intentionally throwing pass 5 yards short of a eligible receiver or 5 yards over the eligible receivers head as legal plays. They are not legal, never have been, and remain illegal in lieu of the new rule exception.
-
Our guidance was always if there is a receiver "in the area" we are good. We had to determine that there was no receiver in the "area" and "area" was a big space. The benefit of the doubt always went to the passer. If we flagged anything that was not clearly a flagrant "dump" we would have an unwanted discussion with our assigner.
-
Our guidance was always if there is a receiver "in the area" we are good. We had to determine that there was no receiver in the "area" and "area" was a big space. The benefit of the doubt always went to the passer. If we flagged anything that was not clearly a flagrant "dump" we would have an unwanted discussion with our assigner.
I will surmise that guidance may have been given prior to 2019 when Massachusetts used the NCAA Rules Book?
-
I will surmise that guidance may have been given prior to 2019 when Massachusetts used the NCAA Rules Book?
Not really. If there's a receiver in the zip code we're good. Has to be a flagrant dump to get a flag.
-
Not really. If there's a receiver in the zip code we're good. Has to be a flagrant dump to get a flag.
I would be interested in how you instruct the difference between the two?
-
Here's what went to the Editorial Committee :
7-5-2 ART> 2...An illegal forward pass is a foul. Illegal forward passes include.....
EXCEPTIONS:
1.iT IS LEGAL FOR A PLAYER POSITIONED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SNAPPER TO CONSERVE TIME BY INTENTIONALLY THROWING THE BALL FORWARD TO THE GROUND IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECIEVING THE SNAP THAT HAS NEITHER BEEN MUFFED NOR TOUCHED THE GROUND.
2. IT IS LEGAL FOR A PLAYER TO CONSERVE YARDAGE BY INTENTIONALLY THROWING AN INCOMPLETE PASS IF:
A) THE PLAYER IS OR HAS BEEN BEYOND THE LATERAL BOUNDARY OF THE FBZ AS ESTABLISHED AT THE SNAP WHEN THE PASS IS RELEASED.
b) THE FORWARD PASS REACHES THE NEUTRAL ZONE OR BYOND ,INCLUDING THE AREA OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF PLAY.
NOTE 1: THERE IS NO REQUIREMENTFOR AN ELIGIBLE OFFENSIVE RECIEVER TO BE IN THE AREA FOR THIS EXCEPTION
NOTE 2: SHOULD THE PASSER MEET BOTH CRITERIA IN (A) AND (B) ,IT IS AN INCOMPLETE PASS.
The Editorial Committee may tweak it some, my thoughts being the addition of " player directly behind the snapper " as in exception in EXP. 1. The majority feeling that a running back on a sweep couldn't use this to prevent loss of yardage.
Hope this helps to clarify.
-
I think that rule is fairly straightforward and what I was expecting it to be, especially if it includes your mentioned amendment.
I would point out two potential loopholes that somebody may either a) try to utilize or (more likely) b) use to cause an argument at a rules clinic (or online message board *cough* :sTiR:)
1. Receiver on a fly sweep "intercepts" the shotgun snap. Would he be afforded either of those protections? I could see it's a simple "yes" that the person who receives the snap would meet the "directly behind the snapper" criteria.
2. Late in the 4th, offense needs a chunk of yards for the game winning score. QB rolls out to the sideline, but the defense has everybody covered. No defender is actively pressuring the QB, but the QB dumps the ball out of bounds (beyond the LOS) to save time (because a three yard gain and being tackled in bounds is the worse option) and run another play. Considering the rule says "To conserve yardage", is this still an illegal forward pass?
-
I think that rule is fairly straightforward and what I was expecting it to be, especially if it includes your mentioned amendment.
I would point out two potential loopholes that somebody may either a) try to utilize or (more likely) b) use to cause an argument at a rules clinic (or online message board *cough* :sTiR:)
1. Receiver on a fly sweep "intercepts" the shotgun snap. Would he be afforded either of those protections? I could see it's a simple "yes" that the person who receives the snap would meet the "directly behind the snapper" criteria.
2. Late in the 4th, offense needs a chunk of yards for the game winning score. QB rolls out to the sideline, but the defense has everybody covered. No defender is actively pressuring the QB, but the QB dumps the ball out of bounds (beyond the LOS) to save time (because a three yard gain and being tackled in bounds is the worse option) and run another play. Considering the rule says "To conserve yardage", is this still an illegal forward pass?
On point #1, I would respond that the back- in legal motion - wasn't directly behind the snapper at the snap, as his interception of the snap came slightly thereafter.
On Point #2, you have a good point and I'll contact our editor, Bob Colgate, to get a clarification. Thanks for the suggestion.
-
On point #1, I would respond that the back- in legal motion - wasn't directly behind the snapper at the snap, as his interception of the snap came slightly thereafter.
On Point #2, you have a good point and I'll contact our editor, Bob Colgate, to get a clarification. Thanks for the suggestion.
example of,
ALAS, this rule revision may go down as the PERFECT example of, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". Whether this change has proven itself as "beneficial" at upper levels is yet to be proven, but at the NFHS (and below) seems a complete waste of time and needlessly creating a consistent "cluster****".
-
Somebody whizzed in Al’s Wheaties......
-
Here's what went to the Editorial Committee :
7-5-2 ART> 2...An illegal forward pass is a foul. Illegal forward passes include.....
EXCEPTIONS:
1.iT IS LEGAL FOR A PLAYER POSITIONED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SNAPPER TO CONSERVE TIME BY INTENTIONALLY THROWING THE BALL FORWARD TO THE GROUND IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECIEVING THE SNAP THAT HAS NEITHER BEEN MUFFED NOR TOUCHED THE GROUND.
2. IT IS LEGAL FOR A PLAYER TO CONSERVE YARDAGE BY INTENTIONALLY THROWING AN INCOMPLETE PASS IF:
A) THE PLAYER IS OR HAS BEEN BEYOND THE LATERAL BOUNDARY OF THE FBZ AS ESTABLISHED AT THE SNAP WHEN THE PASS IS RELEASED.
b) THE FORWARD PASS REACHES THE NEUTRAL ZONE OR BYOND ,INCLUDING THE AREA OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF PLAY.
NOTE 1: THERE IS NO REQUIREMENTFOR AN ELIGIBLE OFFENSIVE RECIEVER TO BE IN THE AREA FOR THIS EXCEPTION
NOTE 2: SHOULD THE PASSER MEET BOTH CRITERIA IN (A) AND (B) ,IT IS AN INCOMPLETE PASS.
The Editorial Committee may tweak it some, my thoughts being the addition of " player directly behind the snapper " as in exception in EXP. 1. The majority feeling that a running back on a sweep couldn't use this to prevent loss of yardage.
Hope this helps to clarify.
Helps abundantly. Thanks. RE: 2a, am I reading correctly that the passer can be within the parameters of the FBZ at the time of the pass, as long as he has been outside those parameters at some point before the pass?
For clarity: QB receives the snap, rolls outside the FBZ, is pressured so he changes direction, runs back inside the FBZ and then throws a pass beyond the NZ to an area not occupied by an eligible. Legal, correct?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Helps abundantly. Thanks. RE: 2a, am I reading correctly that the passer can be within the parameters of the FBZ at the time of the pass, as long as he has been outside those parameters at some point before the pass?
For clarity: QB receives the snap, rolls outside the FBZ, is pressured so he changes direction, runs back inside the FBZ and then throws a pass beyond the NZ to an area not occupied by an eligible. Legal, correct?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You are correct. A scrambling QB rolling outside the FBZ is fine even if his scramble brings him back inside. By the way, we used the term FBZ in lieu of 'tackle box' because in 9.8 & 6-man there ain't no tackles. The FBZ is 3 yds. each side of snapper in 9,8,& 6.
-
You are correct. A scrambling QB rolling outside the FBZ is fine even if his scramble brings him back inside. By the way, we used the term FBZ in lieu of 'tackle box' because in 9.8 & 6-man there ain't no tackles. The FBZ is 3 yds. each side of snapper in 9,8,& 6.
It was wise to keep the FBZ language, because that's NFHS. Thanks for the clarification.
-
You are correct. A scrambling QB rolling outside the FBZ is fine even if his scramble brings him back inside. By the way, we used the term FBZ in lieu of 'tackle box' because in 9.8 & 6-man there ain't no tackles. The FBZ is 3 yds. each side of snapper in 9,8,& 6.
Once the ball leaves the FBZ doesn't the FBZ cease to exist?
-
Once the ball leaves the FBZ doesn't the FBZ cease to exist?
For legal BBW yes. I imagine that it will now carry forward for the purposes of the passer just like the neutral zone does for a legal/illegal forward pass.
-
Once the ball leaves the FBZ doesn't the FBZ cease to exist?
For this rule, the FBZ remains and stretches all the way back to the end line. For practical purposes, the three states that ran this as experimental considered the passer out of the FBZ if he has taken 3 steps to either side.
-
On point #1, I would respond that the back- in legal motion - wasn't directly behind the snapper at the snap, as his interception of the snap came slightly thereafter.
On Point #2, you have a good point and I'll contact our editor, Bob Colgate, to get a clarification. Thanks for the suggestion.
AFTER FURTHER REVIEW BY THE REPLAY OFFICIAL (one who designed this for an experimental state) : 'positioned directly behind the snapper' applies only to Exception #1 (spiking the ball) and 'to conserve yardage' would include a passer dumping the pass to stop the clock as the slow-footed big ole' Bubbas would someday get to him.
Thanks, NCwingman, for bringing this up. I'd rather drop the ball here than at an auditorium full of coaches that I'll be yapping to this Friday.
pi1eOn :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( :!# pi1eOn
-
For this rule, the FBZ remains and stretches all the way back to the end line. For practical purposes, the three states that ran this as experimental considered the passer out of the FBZ if he has taken 3 steps to either side.
So is the current FBZ language going to be completely rewritten for this change?
-
So is the current FBZ language going to be completely rewritten for this change?
No, only defining the parameters the passer must leave before heaving the football for this rule.
-
No, only defining the parameters the passer must leave before heaving the football for this rule.
So does that mean that once the ball has left the FBZ that there no longer is a FBZ?
-
Somebody whizzed in Al’s Wheaties......
Help me understand Bama, what happened to the concept of "Balance & Risk vs Reward"? Offense still decides what play they CHOOSE to run, and Defense has to deal with, and react to, O's decision. IFP requires O to live with their decision. If they "bail" they suffer the consequence of the "succeeding spot" being the spot where they bailed + a 5 yd penalty (Current exception for "Spike").
Why give O the benefit of allowing them to scramble wherever, and when all else fails, simply "DUMP" the pass and go back to the original succeeding spot? Eliminating the 5 yd penalty is one option, but allowing them to ignore all that scrambling distance (caused by an effective Defense) seems a bit EXCESSIVE.
NCAA and NFL have their own considerations, but NFHS is STILL a learning level where "Balance & Risk vs Reward" are primary values.
-
So does that mean that once the ball has left the FBZ that there no longer is a FBZ?
Don't try to make this too complicated because it is not.
2-17-1 The FBZ is 4-yards either side of the snap of the football. (This determines where the passer must be outside of)
2-17-4 The FBZ disintegrates when the ball leaves the zone. (This is for blocking purposes)
The new rule will use the term the lateral boundary of the FBZ as determined at the snap. (Or something very similar)
This simply determines the area that the passer must have been outside of sometime during the play to meet 1/2 of the requirement to legally terminate the play.. Once out always out.
For the purpose of getting out of the FBZ, the lateral boundary(s) of the FBZ remains until the Passer has been outside.
Restated, YES, the FBZ may have disintegrated for blocking purposes (such as when the QB drops back more than 3 yards) but the lateral boundary of the FBZ remains for the simple purpose of the judging the new rule.
Again, lets not complicate this!
I hope this makes sense!
I completely agree with bama_stripes, somebody must have whizzed in Alf's Wheaties!
-
Don't try to make this too complicated because it is not.
2-17-1 The FBZ is 4-yards either side of the snap of the football. (This determines where the passer must be outside of)
2-17-4 The FBZ disintegrates when the ball leaves the zone. (This is for blocking purposes)
The new rule will use the term the lateral boundary of the FBZ as determined at the snap. (Or something very similar)
This simply determines the area that the passer must have been outside of sometime during the play to meet 1/2 of the requirement to legally terminate the play.. Once out always out.
For the purpose of getting out of the FBZ, the lateral boundary(s) of the FBZ remains until the Passer has been outside.
Restated, YES, the FBZ may have disintegrated for blocking purposes (such as when the QB drops back more than 3 yards) but the lateral boundary of the FBZ remains for the simple purpose of the judging the new rule.
Again, lets not complicate this!
I hope this makes sense!
I completely agree with bama_stripes, somebody must have whizzed in Alf's Wheaties!
I agree this is simple enough. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I like that NFHS has made this similar to NCAA. This will be less confusing for coaches on Friday night. On the other hand, I agree with Al that we shouldn’t be giving A the freedom to just dump the ball. Especially when pressured. As my mentor used to say, I don’t write em, I just memorize and enforce em. This one will not be difficult to enforce.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The new rule will use the term the lateral boundary of the FBZ as determined at the snap. (Or something very similar)
This simply determines the area that the passer must have been outside of sometime during the play to meet 1/2 of the requirement to legally terminate the play.. Once out always out.
I would be surprised if the word lateral is used in an NFHS rulebook but not real surprised if a "new rule" piggybacks on an existing rule even if that existing rule is not a real good fit (think succeeding spot & OT). IMHO not a good idea - just one man's opinion.
-
One thing that helps us in college determine the tackle box parameters is making sure the U/C spots the ball at one of 5 lateral positions. Left hash, left upright, middle, right upright, right hash. So, if the runner is down between the right hash and right upright, put it at one of those two spots and not in the exact spot where he went down.
What helps is that each position gives you a pretty good rough estimate of the lateral confines of the tackle box (or in our case, the FBZ). So if the ball is spotted on the left upright, the left side of the pocket is the left hash, and the right side is the middle of the field. So, if you happen to lose your bearings during the play and you're unsure if where he threw the ball was in or out, you can use those landmarks to assist you. I've verified this on film and it's almost spot on. If the U/C doesn't use those lateral spots for the ball, then you're SOL.
Now, I'd like to see how this lines up with the NFHS fields where the uprights are slightly wider and the hashes are slightly wider. Do we keep 1-5 or do we need 1-7? I'd like to see some film from an EZ angle to determine this.
-
Agree completely with Bossman!
Positions 1-5 are recommended with the exception of 9-Player man which, like the NFL, only uses positions 1-3
(See the 9-Man diagram and you will see why)
It is also recommended that the R now have two wrist bands.
1 - To keep track of the down.
2 - To keep track of the ball position at the snap! This will greatly assist when the R goes brain dead determining where the lateral boundaries of the FBZ are? For 1-2-3-4-5 operating instructions, ask your favorite Umpire!
-
One thing that helps us in college determine the tackle box parameters is making sure the U/C spots the ball at one of 5 lateral positions. Left hash, left upright, middle, right upright, right hash. So, if the runner is down between the right hash and right upright, put it at one of those two spots and not in the exact spot where he went down.
What helps is that each position gives you a pretty good rough estimate of the lateral confines of the tackle box (or in our case, the FBZ). So if the ball is spotted on the left upright, the left side of the pocket is the left hash, and the right side is the middle of the field. So, if you happen to lose your bearings during the play and you're unsure if where he threw the ball was in or out, you can use those landmarks to assist you. I've verified this on film and it's almost spot on. If the U/C doesn't use those lateral spots for the ball, then you're SOL.
Now, I'd like to see how this lines up with the NFHS fields where the uprights are slightly wider and the hashes are slightly wider. Do we keep 1-5 or do we need 1-7? I'd like to see some film from an EZ angle to determine this.
:thumbup - I believe that the 5 positions is more than adequate.
-
One thing that helps us in college determine the tackle box parameters is making sure the U/C spots the ball at one of 5 lateral positions. Left hash, left upright, middle, right upright, right hash. So, if the runner is down between the right hash and right upright, put it at one of those two spots and not in the exact spot where he went down.
What helps is that each position gives you a pretty good rough estimate of the lateral confines of the tackle box (or in our case, the FBZ). So if the ball is spotted on the left upright, the left side of the pocket is the left hash, and the right side is the middle of the field. So, if you happen to lose your bearings during the play and you're unsure if where he threw the ball was in or out, you can use those landmarks to assist you. I've verified this on film and it's almost spot on. If the U/C doesn't use those lateral spots for the ball, then you're SOL.
Now, I'd like to see how this lines up with the NFHS fields where the uprights are slightly wider and the hashes are slightly wider. Do we keep 1-5 or do we need 1-7? I'd like to see some film from an EZ angle to determine this.
Thanks bossman. I agree completely.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
AFTER FURTHER REVIEW BY THE REPLAY OFFICIAL (one who designed this for an experimental state) : 'positioned directly behind the snapper' applies only to Exception #1 (spiking the ball) and 'to conserve yardage' would include a passer dumping the pass to stop the clock as the slow-footed big ole' Bubbas would someday get to him.
Thanks, NCwingman, for bringing this up. I'd rather drop the ball here than at an auditorium full of coaches that I'll be yapping to this Friday.
pi1eOn :o 8] ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( :!# pi1eOn
Just to clarify then, the intent of the rule is that any player that can throw a legal forward pass can utilize Exception #2?
Probably unlikely scenario as a follow up: What if A88 lines up as a slot receiver, outside the FBZ. After the snap, he runs behind the QB and receives a hand off with the intent of throwing a pass - but immediately sees a LB in his face, so he just chucks the ball across the LOS, out of bounds. A88 was outside the FBZ at the snap, but the ball never left the lateral boundary of FBZ. Since the rule you quoted says "the player", that sounds legal under the exception?
-
Just to clarify then, the intent of the rule is that any player that can throw a legal forward pass can utilize Exception #2?
Probably unlikely scenario as a follow up: What if A88 lines up as a slot receiver, outside the FBZ. After the snap, he runs behind the QB and receives a hand off with the intent of throwing a pass - but immediately sees a LB in his face, so he just chucks the ball across the LOS, out of bounds. A88 was outside the FBZ at the snap, but the ball never left the lateral boundary of FBZ. Since the rule you quoted says "the player", that sounds legal under the exception?
While it may sound legal, as the basic rule is written, it may be addresses in a case play. A new rule always brings a lobster crate of case plays with it and this is our major rule change. IMHO, I would be concerned where the player was when he received the ball. If he received the handoff within the FBZ, I feel he would still have to leave it to get the exception. The ref would probably be focused on the ball and not where the player was coming from.
-
Help me understand Bama, what happened to the concept of "Balance & Risk vs Reward"? Offense still decides what play they CHOOSE to run, and Defense has to deal with, and react to, O's decision. IFP requires O to live with their decision. If they "bail" they suffer the consequence of the "succeeding spot" being the spot where they bailed + a 5 yd penalty (Current exception for "Spike").
Why give O the benefit of allowing them to scramble wherever, and when all else fails, simply "DUMP" the pass and go back to the original succeeding spot? Eliminating the 5 yd penalty is one option, but allowing them to ignore all that scrambling distance (caused by an effective Defense) seems a bit EXCESSIVE.
NCAA and NFL have their own considerations, but NFHS is STILL a learning level where "Balance & Risk vs Reward" are primary values.
I’m on record as not liking this change, for the very reasons you’ve enumerated. However, Inwill enforce this rule as written, and I won’t be publicly referring to the new rule as “a waste of time and a cluster****” as you did.
-
I’m on record as not liking this change, for the very reasons you’ve enumerated. However, Inwill enforce this rule as written, and I won’t be publicly referring to the new rule as “a waste of time and a cluster****” as you did.
I fully accept my job is to thoroughly understand, and consistently enforce the rules as presented and determined by the NFHS Rules Committee. Nevertheless, I still believe I'm still entitled to voice an opinion as to what I believe the benefit and effect a new rule may (or MAY NOT) have on the NFHS level of Football.
What may be considered appropriate, necessary and/or practical at other levels of Football may, or OFTEN MAY NOT prove to be as beneficial to the NFHS level. I try and be practical, and specific, about how I choose to season my Wheaties, and at times have been proven wrong.
If you see some overriding benefit, or practical necessity to this exception expansion that I'm overlooking, please enlighten me and help me understand what I'm missing.
-
I fully accept my job is to thoroughly understand, and consistently enforce the rules as presented and determined by the NFHS Rules Committee. Nevertheless, I still believe I'm still entitled to voice an opinion as to what I believe the benefit and effect a new rule may (or MAY NOT) have on the NFHS level of Football.
What may be considered appropriate, necessary and/or practical at other levels of Football may, or OFTEN MAY NOT prove to be as beneficial to the NFHS level. I try and be practical, and specific, about how I choose to season my Wheaties, and at times have been proven wrong.
If you see some overriding benefit, or practical necessity to this exception expansion that I'm overlooking, please enlighten me and help me understand what I'm missing.
One obvious benefit is decreased contact on the QB. I realize that the "no need to be pressured" element of this rule contradicts that thought, but surely there will be times when the QB avoids possible injury by getting rid of the ball instead of holding on and taking the hit. It's important, especially at this level of the game, to adjust and adapt the rules so as to give the most protection to the most vulnerable players. As these players develop in age and ability, I think the rules should change with them. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.
-
One obvious benefit is decreased contact on the QB. I realize that the "no need to be pressured" element of this rule contradicts that thought, but surely there will be times when the QB avoids possible injury by getting rid of the ball instead of holding on and taking the hit. It's important, especially at this level of the game, to adjust and adapt the rules so as to give the most protection to the most vulnerable players. As these players develop in age and ability, I think the rules should change with them. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.
Although "avoiding possible injury" is always a laudable goal, are you suggesting that objective be extended to OTHER players in possession of a live ball? Although laudable, "Avoiding contact" seems to contradict one of the basic components of the game of Football, already detailed and specified in the rules of the game.
-
Although "avoiding possible injury" is always a laudable goal, are you suggesting that objective be extended to OTHER players in possession of a live ball?
No. I'm not suggesting anything. I am simply stating an obvious benefit for the one player involved that the rule addresses.
Although laudable, "Avoiding contact" seems to contradict one of the basic components of the game of Football, already detailed and specified in the rules of the game.
Yes, I agree. But you will also agree that avoiding contact is a "laudable" way to prevent injury, no?
-
YES, I agree that avoiding (Unnecessary, excessive, inappropriate) contact is laudable, and already well covered in NFHS rules. My question is allowing the Offense, who created the play, to unilaterally decide to terminate action when/if the Defense is able to seriously threaten the play's potential success by simply "DUMPING" the ball WITHOUT loss of any yardage caused by the success of Defensive pursuit.
Designating the succeeding spot at the SPOT OF THE PASS would seem a much fairer result.
-
But then the issue becomes, did the QB ditch the ball due to being threatened, or just no play was there? You can't march off yardage against A just because they essentially had an incomplete pass.
There's way to much subjectivity in deciding if a receiver was in the area, if he was being threatened, just throwing it away, just a terrible passer...
-
YES, I agree that avoiding (Unnecessary, excessive, inappropriate) contact is laudable, and already well covered in NFHS rules. My question is allowing the Offense, who created the play, to unilaterally decide to terminate action when/if the Defense is able to seriously threaten the play's potential success by simply "DUMPING" the ball WITHOUT loss of any yardage caused by the success of Defensive pursuit.
Designating the succeeding spot at the SPOT OF THE PASS would seem a much fairer result.
Yes I agree with that. I’m like you in that I do not like the rule. But even as bad as it is, there are some tangible benefits. If I had my way, we would leave it alone.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
But then the issue becomes, did the QB ditch the ball due to being threatened, or just no play was there? You can't march off yardage against A just because they essentially had an incomplete pass.
There's way to much subjectivity in deciding if a receiver was in the area, if he was being threatened, just throwing it away, just a terrible passer...
Bobby. NFHS: 7-5-2-d & e provides necessary assistance in determining whether. or not, a violation has occurred by including the necessity of the covering official's (exclusive) JUDGMENT that the pass was INTENTIONALLY thrown either (d) "INTENTIONALLY thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver." or (e) "INTENTIONALLY thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time."
Either violation is determined by the EXCLUSIVE JUDGMENT of the covering official, based, specifically, on what has been directly observed and determined as being INTENTIONAL and providing an UNEARNED ADVANTAGE.
-
But then the issue becomes, did the QB ditch the ball due to being threatened, or just no play was there? You can't march off yardage against A just because they essentially had an incomplete pass.
There's way to much subjectivity in deciding if a receiver was in the area, if he was being threatened, just throwing it away, just a terrible passer...
I think the new rule takes the subjectivity out of the picture. According to the experts here, all we have to determine is if the passer has been outside the fbz, and did the pass cross the nz or nz extended.
-
I have one major question on this rule
....if the QB hands the ball off on a halfback option....is the halfback allowed to use the exception and dump the ball as long as he meets all the requirements....OR is this rule only in effect for the person who receives the snap
-
I have one major question on this rule
....if the QB hands the ball off on a halfback option....is the halfback allowed to use the exception and dump the ball as long as he meets all the requirements....OR is this rule only in effect for the person who receives the snap
If they follow NCAA, it will only be for the player that first controls the snap.
-
I have one major question on this rule
....if the QB hands the ball off on a halfback option....is the halfback allowed to use the exception and dump the ball as long as he meets all the requirements....OR is this rule only in effect for the person who receives the snap
I’m pretty sure one of the guys stated it was the passer. Which, in your case the answer would be yes. The halfback would be considered the passer if/when he passed the ball.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I’m pretty sure one of the guys stated it was the passer. Which, in your case the answer would be yes. The halfback would be considered the passer if/when he passed the ball.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Calhoun is correct, anyone can be a passer -even a big ole' Bubba. If the designed play was a halfback option, I can see that occurring BUT if it was intended to be a running play and the runner didn't like how things were looking and dumped a pass you probably could have an illegible receiver or offensive pass interference.
-
PLAY: Player A12 is in the shotgun, but the snap goes well over his head. In an attempt to recover the snap, A12 muffs the ball outside the lateral limit of the FBZ. Player A76 recovers the muff, and throws an incomplete forward pass which crosses the LOS. There is no eligible receiver in the area.
Legal?
-
PLAY: Player A12 is in the shotgun, but the snap goes well over his head. In an attempt to recover the snap, A12 muffs the ball outside the lateral limit of the FBZ. Player A76 recovers the muff, and throws an incomplete forward pass which crosses the LOS. There is no eligible receiver in the area.
Legal?
Legal, A76 has a 0-1 passing record :). While the pass is legal, that doesn't mean that there's not a foul if his lineman buddies had strolled downfield thinking that this was supposed to be a running play. ^flag
-
PLAY: Player A12 is in the shotgun, but the snap goes well over his head. In an attempt to recover the snap, A12 muffs the ball outside the lateral limit of the FBZ. Player A76 recovers the muff, and throws an incomplete forward pass which crosses the LOS. There is no eligible receiver in the area.
Legal?
Doesn't it make sense to simply wait until the official rules and case plays are published instead of speculating? Right now we simply seem to know that any "passer" can throw the ball away if:
1 - the ball has been outside the FBZ (using it's new definition)
AND
2. the legal forward pass crosses the NZ.
I can wait to read the "official text" before then speculating further on the what ifs.
-
Doesn't it make sense to simply wait until the official rules and case plays are published instead of speculating? Right now we simply seem to know that any "passer" can throw the ball away if:
1 - the ball has been outside the FBZ (using it's new definition)
AND
2. the legal forward pass crosses the NZ.
I can wait to read the "official text" before then speculating further on the what ifs.
May make sense, but you know by now that’s not our nature. Plus, there is really no harm in speculating, is it? That’s kinda what message boards and forums are for…
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Legal, A76 has a 0-1 passing record :). While the pass is legal, that doesn't mean that there's not a foul if his lineman buddies had strolled downfield thinking that this was supposed to be a running play. ^flag
Then I like this rule even less than I originally thought. I would (begrudgingly) be OK with it if the exception was limited to a back positioned within the lateral limits of the FBZ at the snap.
And of course, this could also happen on a planned pass play. :sTiR:
-
I spoke at the Maine Coaches Clinic this past Friday and this was a hot topic from their point of view. While many of you , myself included, were not for this change; they felt that the safety factor alone made it a good move. They seemed to grasp the parameters of the FBZ and the OOB extension of the LOS for this. Their only question was : "Does this also apply to a halfback option ??? ?" I said yes, as long as he is/has been outside of the FBZ after the snap.
While I'm not excited about this new rule, it is one of our new rules and I feel confident that we'll be able to handle it correctly.The three states that ran this as an experimental rule were Oregon, Iowa and Hawaii. If any of you are from any of those, we would appreciate your opinions. On the NFHS Football Rules Questionnaire, which many of us responded to, the in favor of this rule was:
COACHES 69% OFFICIALS 56% STATE ASSOCIATIONS 57%
OH, BY THE WAY---STATES WITH MOST OFFICIALS' VOTES:
GOLD : Ohio 1062 SILVER : Pennsylvania 866 BRONZE : Michigan 691...……………………….Texas & DC : 0
^flag ^good ^no ^TD ^talk :sTiR: :puke:
PS TO OUR FRIENDS FROM THE LONE STAR STATE : Texas was included on the list as 9 coaches voted on the NFHS website. They may not be sure which state they're in !
-
Then I like this rule even less than I originally thought. I would (begrudgingly) be OK with it if the exception was limited to a back positioned within the lateral limits of the FBZ at the snap.
And of course, this could also happen on a planned pass play. :sTiR:
The basic principle remains UNCHANGED, "Officials enforce the rules created by the Rules Committee, whether they like them, or not". However, as previously suggested, including the actual wording of a rule change, when it is announced, might very well minimize confusion about enforcement details.
When a "Cure" causes more problems than a sickness, its often more rational to deal with the sickness, than force the cure. The Offense chooses whatever play they want (to which the defense has to respond) when the offense chooses BADLY allowing them to "Dump" their choice without consequence provides an UNEARNED ADVANTAGE.
Currently, "Dumping" a forward pass causes loss of the down + the succeeding spot being the spot of the pass, which have both served for decades to minimize the frequency of penalizing IFP. DUMPING is DUMPING regardless of where (behind the line) it happens. This adjustment seems far more like a means to appease those wanting to mimic higher rule levels, and offers little positive to the NFHS level game.
-
PS TO OUR FRIENDS FROM THE LONE STAR STATE : Texas was included on the list as 9 coaches voted on the NFHS website. They may not be sure which state they're in !
I think I know all 9…. Not surprised they have no idea where they are. :)
But seriously, folks. Ralph, are y’all consciously and deliberately straying from the NCAA rule, which requires the passer to be the player that first controls the snap. So, in NCAA, a player that takes a handoff or backward pass from the player that first controls the snap is NOT able to legally throw the ball away by being the BC outside the tackle box before the throws a pass that crosses the NZ (extended). (He could still ground it by throwing it to an area occupied by an eligible A player.) No skin off my nose, but it seems like the NFHS is considering this rule, because it is being used in the NCAA (in its specific form). If that is the case, why not adopt the tried and true NCAA rule, in its entirety?
-
I think I know all 9…. Not surprised they have no idea where they are. :)
But seriously, folks. Ralph, are y’all consciously and deliberately straying from the NCAA rule, which requires the passer to be the player that first controls the snap. So, in NCAA, a player that takes a handoff or backward pass from the player that first controls the snap is NOT able to legally throw the ball away by being the BC outside the tackle box before the throws a pass that crosses the NZ (extended). (He could still ground it by throwing it to an area occupied by an eligible A player.) No skin off my nose, but it seems like the NFHS is considering this rule, because it is being used in the NCAA (in its specific form). If that is the case, why not adopt the tried and true NCAA rule, in its entirety?
This seems to be the eternal unanswered question.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Good video by Matt Sumstine on the topic:
https://youtu.be/E5ObYpXCmsQ
-
Adding the term 'tackle box' would have required us to add said term to Rule 2 - Definitions. Where there ain't no tackle positions in 6,8 or 9-man football, using the FBZ as parameters seemed to make more sense. Attempting to make the rule as simple as possible, the only two requirements were : (1) Passer had to have been outside the FBZ - couldn't dump it from the pocket; (2) Pass had to go beyond LOS - couldn't spike it.
Any rule change can always be tweaked as the years go by if unintended consequences arise. I believe this occurred a couple of times after we passed PSK. Bossman mentioned Matt Sumstine, Matt is Hawaii's rep on the Football Rules Committee and was instrumental in writing this rule.
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5-man crew)
-
Watched the video. Very well done. My question about the additional wristband is whether it’s necessary? My thinking is that I’m going to be back there when the ball is snapped any way, and it seems like a no brainer to determine if he’s been outside the FBZ or not. In fact, I really don’t anticipate any confusion about this rule at all. I’m not fond of giving A an easy way out, but if that’s what they want, we can officiate it.
I’m also fine with the language. Everyone who does NFHS is familiar with the term “free blocking zone,” so no need to add or change language there.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
consciously and deliberately straying from the NCAA rule, which requires the passer to be the player that first controls the snap.
Because then we're having to go to Rule 2 and change the definition of passer. The ingredients to baking this case increase.
-
Adding the term 'tackle box' would have required us to add said term to Rule 2 - Definitions. Where there ain't no tackle positions in 6,8 or 9-man football, using the FBZ as parameters seemed to make more sense. Attempting to make the rule as simple as possible, the only two requirements were : (1) Passer had to have been outside the FBZ - couldn't dump it from the pocket; (2) Pass had to go beyond LOS - couldn't spike it.
Any rule change can always be tweaked as the years go by if unintended consequences arise. I believe this occurred a couple of times after we passed PSK. Bossman mentioned Matt Sumstine, Matt is Hawaii's rep on the Football Rules Committee and was instrumental in writing this rule.
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5-man crew)
Well, OK, then. Conscious and deliberate. Go forth and prosper. (We need a Vulcan "v" emoji. :))
For those of you that work NFHS and NCAA, here is yet another difference - a very big difference - that you will have to toggle back and forth.
PS Matt and I were on the WAC staff together back in the 2000s. Good guy. Always envious of my brethren from Paradise. A lot more travel than the rest of us, but look what they got to go home to.
-
Watched the video. Very well done. My question about the additional wristband is whether it’s necessary? My thinking is that I’m going to be back there when the ball is snapped any way, and it seems like a no brainer to determine if he’s been outside the FBZ or not. In fact, I really don’t anticipate any confusion about this rule at all. I’m not fond of giving A an easy way out, but if that’s what they want, we can officiate it.
I’m also fine with the language. Everyone who does NFHS is familiar with the term “free blocking zone,” so no need to add or change language there.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The extra down indicator helps if you get lost or have a brain fart and forget to observe the tackle box. It's there as a back up. This only works if your U puts the ball in spots 1-5.
-
Because then we're having to go to Rule 2 and change the definition of passer. The ingredients to baking this case increase.
FYI, the definition of a passer didn't change (in NCAA, when this rule arrived). The ING rule was provided with an exception that allowed the player that first controlled the snap to legally ground the ball under those conditions. Someone other than the player that first controls the snap may certainly pass the ball, and have all the protections afforded a passer. He just doesn't have the legal ability to ground the ball in this manner. From an officiating perspective, when the ball is handed or passed backward to another A player, the R has to mentally note that Team A may no longer legally ground the ball in this manner. That has become second nature to me, now, after years of reminding myself about this before every game.
But, it seems NFHS folks won't have to worry about that. The BC/passer, whomever he might be, just needs to get outside the "FBZ" and throw it across the NZ. The biggest mechanics changes will be that, as noted, the R will need to have a good idea of the limits of the 'zone,' and the wings will have to help the R with whether or not the ball does, in fact, cross the NZ (extended). No different from NCAA, other than the technical size of the respective 'zones.' It will take a little practice, but it, too, will become second nature.
An easy cake to bake.
-
The extra down indicator helps if you get lost or have a brain fart and forget to observe the tackle box. It's there as a back up. This only works if your U puts the ball in spots 1-5.
I get that, and agree. I just can't envision a scenario where I'm not concentrating and following the QB (oops, passer) hEaDbAnG closely enough to know if/when he wanders outside of the FREE BLOCKING ZONE.. LOL cRaZy
I guess what I'm trying to say is the positional awareness in real time during the down will be sufficient to determine the parameters closely enough. Trying to remember all the intricacies of the 5-finger plan seems more complicated than just paying attention to what you're doing on the field. but that's JMO.
-
PS TO OUR FRIENDS FROM THE LONE STAR STATE : Texas was included on the list as 9 coaches voted on the NFHS website. They may not be sure which state they're in !
I think they just don't know what rules we use. ;D
-
Probably an AD that is the head basketball coach. He would be a member of NFHS and probably thought he was doing his football coach a favor.
About 15 years ago in our walk through of the field (grass), the two yard line had been marked as the point after spot. I went and asked the coach why. He said that the rule had changed and it was now the two instead of the three. He almost had me convinced because of his rock hard belief that he knew what he was doing. I told him that it was only a NFL placement and we would be using the three yard line.
I think everybody should be able to use the rule they like best. Before the game you ask the coach about any special plays they might be running and what rule book will you be using. Your choices are:
1) Intramural Flag
2) Canadian Rule
3) Australian Rule
4) NFL
5) Arena
6) NFHS
7) NCAA
And you can pick any two rules from any other of the six you did not pick.
This would make for a very interesting game. LOL
-
I think I know all 9…. Not surprised they have no idea where they are. :)
But seriously, folks. Ralph, are y’all consciously and deliberately straying from the NCAA rule, which requires the passer to be the player that first controls the snap. So, in NCAA, a player that takes a handoff or backward pass from the player that first controls the snap is NOT able to legally throw the ball away by being the BC outside the tackle box before the throws a pass that crosses the NZ (extended). (He could still ground it by throwing it to an area occupied by an eligible A player.) No skin off my nose, but it seems like the NFHS is considering this rule, because it is being used in the NCAA (in its specific form). If that is the case, why not adopt the tried and true NCAA rule, in its entirety?
For the record, Elvis, under the NFHS code "A Passer" is defined as (2-32-11) "A passer is a player who throws a legal forward pass. (SEE 2-31-1). He continues to be a passer until the legal forward pass ends or until he moves to participate in the play."
Those of our profession who (formerly, currently, or in the future) choose to work multiple levels (NFHS, NCAA, NFL, other) games choose to accept the added burden and responsibility of applying the appropriate rule code to the contest they are officiating, which at times can add to possible confusion and requires additional study & concentration to avoid problems.
-
Probably an AD that is the head basketball coach. He would be a member of NFHS and probably thought he was doing his football coach a favor.
About 15 years ago in our walk through of the field (grass), the two yard line had been marked as the point after spot. I went and asked the coach why. He said that the rule had changed and it was now the two instead of the three. He almost had me convinced because of his rock hard belief that he knew what he was doing. I told him that it was only a NFL placement and we would be using the three yard line.
I think everybody should be able to use the rule they like best. Before the game you ask the coach about any special plays they might be running and what rule book will you be using. Your choices are:
1) Intramural Flag
2) Canadian Rule
3) Australian Rule
4) NFL
5) Arena
6) NFHS
7) NCAA
And you can pick any two rules from any other of the six you did not pick.
This would make for a very interesting game. LOL
I vote rugby rule. You can start at any yardline you like, but the ball is placed laterally at the spot of the touchdown -- including outside the hashmarks.
I wonder if the Great Filter will let me say that, because I mean "lateral" not "backwards".
-
I vote rugby rule. You can start at any yardline you like, but the ball is placed laterally at the spot of the touchdown -- including outside the hashmarks.
I wonder if the Great Filter will let me say that, because I mean "lateral" not "backwards".
lateral pass.....as in backwards pass....let's see if the filter still works.
**modifying to say the filter is broken
-
While I'm not a true fan of Australian football, I do enjoy the way the officials signal score , goal, touchdown or whatever. I strongly recommend that the >:D 'grope-touch' :P be an automatic disqualified :thumbup in Co-ed touch football. Brady's back :!#..is that good :) or bad :( ?
tR:oLl :o 8] ??? :puke: ::) :P :-[ :-X :-* :puke: :bOW :!# tR:oLl
Time to walk the huntin' dawg yEs:
-
Brady's back. That's good (unless you were the TB backup QB :)). If he gets 8, no one will come close to that record. 5 will be the most anyone else ever gets. I hope you all live long and happily enough to say I was wrong (more than 5, or 8 or more).
Hope all are healthy and happy.
-
The extra down indicator helps if you get lost or have a brain fart and forget to observe the tackle box. It's there as a back up. This only works if your U puts the ball in spots 1-5.
I agree. For precise operating instructions on how to use the 2nd wristband, ask any Umpire.
-
I use 4 fingers palm up facing me. Left hash, left upright, right upright, right hash. Around 2 fingers means between any two. That gives me 7 spots.
-
If I am U or B, I have 5 spots I use: left hash, left post, middle, right post, right hash. Any of those sports I keep in case there is a penalty, so I can tell the crew the lateral location of the previous spot.
-
I appreciate Matt's video on tracking the FBZ as it will be very helpful for many. This aid plus the mental focus of the FBZ white hats have watched for years should reduce the challenge of this call. The rule of :thumbup that was used by many in the experimental states was ,if the passer had taken three steps to either side, he was probably out of the FBZ. Remember ,this portion of the rule was to keep the passer from staying in the pocket and dumping the pass.
[/WHEN IN DOUBT, HE'S OUT yEs:b]
-
I appreciate Matt's video on tracking the FBZ as it will be very helpful for many. This aid plus the mental focus of the FBZ white hats have watched for years should reduce the challenge of this call. The rule of :thumbup that was used by many in the experimental states was ,if the passer had taken three steps to either side, he was probably out of the FBZ. Remember ,this portion of the rule was to keep the passer from staying in the pocket and dumping the pass.
[/WHEN IN DOUBT, HE'S OUT yEs:b]
This is a good rule of thumb and I think will be sufficient.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
[/WHEN YOU DONT REMEMBER WHERE HE STARTED,
CHECK YUR NEW WRISTBAND!! yEs:b]
-
I would be surprised if the word lateral is used in an NFHS rulebook but not real surprised if a "new rule" piggybacks on an existing rule even if that existing rule is not a real good fit (think succeeding spot & OT). IMHO not a good idea - just one man's opinion.
Since the word "laterally" is already being used in the 2-17-1 FBZ definition, it was used (as lateral) in 7-5-2 EXCEPTION 2
-
To many people, soccer seems like a very complicated game at first. In my opinion, the sport becomes easier when you have a basic understanding of the game. Once you overcome the initial fear of not understanding, it all comes together in a clear pattern. I started that way, but now I don't have time to keep up with all the innovations. I usually read the articles on https://zumroad.com/sport (https://zumroad.com/sport), which are briefly described there. It helps me keep up with soccer somehow.
-
To many people, soccer seems like a very complicated game at first. In my opinion, the sport becomes easier when you have a basic understanding of the game.
That can be said for most sports. Football, however, has multiple levels of rules. For a sport involving heavy physical contact involving participants between the ages of 8 - 40+, rule modifications are made to fit the participants and needs of each level (Youth, NFHS, NCAA, Semi-pro, NFL). What makes sense for one level, may not automatically fit as well at other levels.
-
To many people, soccer seems like a very complicated game at first. In my opinion, the sport becomes easier when you have a basic understanding of the game.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/TNO6mwK8s38vpHjh8Y/giphy.gif)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
check this out: https://youtu.be/d5BFaykcxGg
Canadian football at its best
Fudillgas's clip has much more than just that first play. Something good to watch before the Pats play the Packers ...ENJOY tiphat: